As the pharmaceutical industry churns out more cancer treatments, a new analysis finds that oncologists who receive payments over an extended period of time — mostly for speaking or consulting — are much more likely to prescribe a medicine made by the company that writes them a check.

The physicians treating kidney and lung cancer as well as chronic myeloid leukemia typically wrote more prescriptions for drugs made by a company that paid them over a three-year period, according to the findings, which were published in The Oncologist. However, a cause-and-effect relationship was not established and the same sort of association was not found among doctors who treated prostate cancer.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • STAT+ Conversations
  • Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • There is an old saying “Propinquity breeds attraction.” These payments may cause a focus that keeps the Rx more in mid, giving more opportunity to find value in the treatment. (One that is stronger than simply the ‘food and beverage’ one.)
    As a quasi-cynic, I would further postulate that the flow of information would tend to focus on value / safety, rather than ‘merely anecdotal’ reports of side effects? Or at least, one would wonder.

Comments are closed.

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy